Some of you might know that I have been insisting for years that, to recover astrology's one-time neatness, it will be necessary to introduce further, still unknown planets of the solar system. So it might be understandable that I am quite excited that very recently such a planet has been predicted by the famous astronomer Mike Brown who already discovered Eris and many other trans-Neptunian objects.

Although the new planet hasn't been observed yet, the probability of its existence has been determined as 15'000:1 based on observed gravitational disturbances in the outer solar system. Mike Brown said that there might actually be more than one planet still hidden on the outskirts of the solar system.

To complete the domicile scheme in modern astrology, Taurus should be next in line to receive a "lord" of its own, followed eventually by Virgo. (Surely there are alternative views on this.)

This will not invalidate the traditional scheme in which five planets and two luminaries rule all the signs of the zodiac, it will just add another dimension to it.

To complete the domicile scheme in modern astrology, Taurus should be next in line to receive a "lord" of its own, followed eventually by Virgo. (Surely there are alternative views on this.)

This will not invalidate the traditional scheme in which five planets and two luminaries rule all the signs of the zodiac, it will just add another dimension to it.

Hi Michael,

Its thought this object has an orbit way outside the ecliptic and takes around 20,000 years to circle the Sun. Almost a complete precessional cycle. I dont see this as any kind of sensible solution to the the so called rulership problem of modern astrology.

Astronomically, this is an interesting prediction. But in astrological terms I dont think we should jump at every newly discovered object as astrologically significant.

Its at times like this I am so glad I dont need to worry about every Trans-Neptunian iceball out there to do astrology. 29 years is quite long enough to wait for a planet to return to its domicile! Your a patient man indeed if you willing to wait 20,000 years...

Mark_________________‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly

As holdorflod says, this is not about another Plutoid but a body estimated to have ten times the mass of Earth. I don't see why its slow movement would disqualify it as a major astrological influence? Its zodiacal position must be significant in terms of long historical periods. Whereas its aspects and house position should be telling on a more intimate level.

I am aware that as a traditional astrologer, you don't even care too much for the trans-Saturnians. But I do recall you looking deeply into the fixed stars.

Apparently it's a gas giant and just a bit smaller than Neptune, which makes the discovery pretty exciting in contrast to all the minor iceballs out there.

Thanks. I initially missed that point. However, its worth pointing out this is still only a body which has been mathematically predicted at this stage yet not an established fact. Although I acknowledge such modelling has been a successful approach in the past. Still, as I explain below there are possible issues with the methodology used by these two scientists on this occasion.

Mark_________________‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly

Last edited by Mark on Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:30 pm; edited 4 times in total

As holdorflod says, this is not about another Plutoid but a body estimated to have ten times the mass of Earth.

Yes I am getting that Michael. Ok I accept that does make this prediction of a body more significant than I first appreciated.

Although these calculations were based on just 6 TNOs to work out the perturbing effects on the orbit of Neptune. The discovery of further large TNO 'ice ball' in this vicinity of the Kuiper belt could throw out this whole theory.

This is the view of scientist Dave Jewitt who actually discovered the existence of the whole Kuiper belt. From an article on the discovery of the hypothetical 9th planet he is quoted as saying:

Quote:

Jewitt , who discovered the Kuiper belt, is more cautious. The 0.007% chance that the clustering of the six objects is coincidental gives the planet claim a statistical significance of 3.8 sigma—beyond the 3-sigma threshold typically required to be taken seriously, but short of the 5 sigma that is sometimes used in fields like particle physics. That worries Jewitt, who has seen plenty of 3-sigma results disappear before. By reducing the dozen objects examined by Sheppard and Trujillo to six for their analysis, Batygin and Brown weakened their claim, he says. “I worry that the finding of a single new object that is not in the group would destroy the whole edifice,” says Jewitt, who is at UC Los Angeles. “It’s a game of sticks with only six sticks.”

Michael Sternbach wrote:

Quote:

I don't see why its slow movement would disqualify it as a major astrological influence?

Thats really up to each astrologer to decide. But its slow movement clearly limits its practical utility for many branches of astrology. Assuming it actually exists its transits might certainly be interesting for long term mundane astrology but I cant see it having as much relevance to fields like horary, electional or natal astrology. Unless it was exactly conjunct or aspecting an angle or key planet at time of birth or time or question. Apart from the fact it has yet to be discovered its astrological effects will take take decades of research to establish. Indeed I am sceptical of the motives of astrologers that rush to print on such issues without allowing the necessary careful research and observation for many years.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

Quote:

Its zodiacal position must be significant in terms of long historical periods. Whereas its aspects and house position should be telling on a more intimate level.

Yes. Its really your next leap I object to which is trying to fit this into your pre-conceived notion of rulerships. I dont see how such a slow moving body can be accepted as a planetary ruler. But then I dont use Uranus, Neptune or Pluto either.

Quote:

I am aware that as a traditional astrologer, you don't even care too much for the trans-Saturnians. But I do recall you looking deeply into the fixed stars.

Touche! Yes fixed stars and comets and nova. But this gets into a philosophical issue of whether there is a difference between an object that can can be perceived by the human eye ( 7 traditional planets, fixed stars and comets) and those invisible to us. In the latter category are asteroids, centaurs, Uranus, Neptune, and numerous trans-Neptunian bodies.

Perhaps its less philosophically correct than rejecting all invisible points but many traditionally orientated astrologers do still work with Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.

Up to now I have taken the view that Pluto was the gatekeeper to the Kuiper belt ice balls. I therefore stopped my attention there. However, the presence of a gas giant further out rather wrecks that view. So once we a) discover this body actually exists as predicted b) establish it is a large gas giant c) form some view of its astrological influence. There may be a place for it.

But I do wonder about its supposed radical orbit placing it totally out of the ecliptic most of the time. Does this make it less astrologically significant? Those that use fixed stars often consider stars well outside the ecliptic as less astrologically relevant.

Mark_________________‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly

Some of you might know that I have been insisting for years that, to recover astrology's one-time neatness, it will be necessary to introduce further, still unknown planets of the solar system.

Just to say that for many of us here the solution to this problem was to return to the traditional rulerships which have a symmetry and philosophical consistency that has never been matched in modern astrology. You can still work with other bodies like Chiron, or Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto while retaining the traditional rulership scheme. This connects you to a core principle of horoscopic astrology.

Its seems to me your idea is based on an article of faith ie that the the solar system will provide enough suitable planets to serve as new rulers. But rather than holding on for 'jam tomorrow' as we say in Britain I urge people to explore the harmony of the traditional rulership scheme.

Mark_________________‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly

Just to say that for many of us here the solution to this problem was to return to the traditional rulerships which have a symmetry and philosophical consistency that has never been matched in modern astrology. You can still work with other bodies like Chiron, or Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto while retaining the traditional rulership scheme. This connects you to a core principle of horoscopic astrology.

Its seems to me your idea is based on an article of faith ie that the the solar system will provide enough suitable planets to serve as new rulers. But rather than holding on for 'jam tomorrow' as we say in Britain I urge people to explore the harmony of the traditional rulership scheme.

Before we get too excited about a (hypothetical) new Neptune-sized body twenty at an estimated average orbital distance of 600 Astronomical Units from the Sun, let's take a critical look at how big that object would appear from Earth.

600 AU is 20 times the distance of Neptune (30 AU).

The apparent magnitude (which is to say, apparent surface area as an arc fraction of the total sky) of an exactly Neptune-sized body at 600 AU, according to my calculations, would be equivalent to only 0.99, on a scale where that of Pluto is 0.48 and that of Neptune 396. Thus, we are a looking at a body that if, and only, if it is at that distance and fully the size of Neptune, would appear from Earth only twice the size of Pluto, about two-thirds of the size of the asteroids Davida (1.48 ), Eunomia (1.48 ) and Europa (1.44), less than two-fifths of the size of the asteroid Hygiea (2.60), and less than one quarter of the size of the asteroid Pallas (4.00).

These calculations are based on dividing the surface area of each body by the square of its mean distance from the Earth, in accordance with the proven physical law relating the apparent size of any body to its distance from the observational source.

Until astrologers have comprehensively studied and acknowledged the influence of all asteroids down to the apparent magnitude of this hypothetical Neptune-sized body, personally I do not see any reasonable cause for according special preference to the study of such a body even as and when it is confirmed (if it is confirmed).

I can't vouch for a site called "Zetatalk," but there is a note on that site that states the so-called Planet 9 is actually our sun's unlit binary star. An Internet site devoted to the possibility of our solar system being part of a binary system has been on-line for years. This is Walter Cruttenden's BRI (Binary Research Institute) site. Walter wrote Lost Star of Myth and Time in 2006 (St. Lynne's Press). This book covers many facets of the binary theory for our sun. The book is a very interesting read.

http://www.zetatalk3.com/newsletr/issue487.htm
"Simultaneously, on January 20, 2016, dozens of media outlets announced that another planet in the solar system had been discovered. It quickly became obvious that this was not a planet but the Sun's dark unlit binary, long described by the Zetas as being 18.74 Sun-Pluto distances away. The newly named discovery by a pair of astronomers called this object Planet 9, stating that it lay 20 Sun-Pluto distances away...."

Contact Deborah Houlding
| terms and conditions
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated